There were at least two insurrectionist plans that day.
As I’ve written previously, one of the plans was simply to either take Pence hostage or to assassinate him. 1/28
The point is that on January 20 Trump would still be sitting in the White House, with no Congressional certification of the election having been completed. 18/28
Checkmate.
That seems to have been the thinking of most of the insurrectionists. 19/28
It is a pernicious lie that they want to defend the Constitution. 22/28
The insurrectionist right only wants to defend what they call the “original Constitution”--which is *their* Constitution, not ours, and to do it by any means necessary. 23/28
The best way to do that was to win re-election legally.
Failing that, he was determined to stay in power through a coup. 24/28
More from Thomas Wood 🌊
It was a foregone conclusion that Trump would lose the TX case, but why did he say “This is the big one?” 1/9
Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9
and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9
This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9
In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2020
Because the TX case rested on the proposition that a national election can be nullified and “overturned” (a term Trump actually used in a tweet) on the grounds that it does not satisfy conditions determined by the incumbent president 2/9
and the states governed by that president’s political party--
(e..g., no votes by voters receiving mail-in ballots who do not request those ballots shall be deemed legitimate.) 3/9
This litigation was intended to nullify all the votes in all 50 states, and would have called for a new election. It challenged election procedures, not just election results. And it did not require any proof of fraud or undercounts or overcounts. 4/9
In other words, no national election can be legitimate that fails to reelect the incumbent president--in this case of course, Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Leader of the *real* America. 5/9
More from Government
Typically excellent piece from @dsquareddigest The exponential insight is especially neat. Think of it a little like fishing...today you can’t export oysters to the EU (because you simply aren’t allowed to), tomorrow you don’t have a fish exporting business (to the EU).
The extremely small minority of people who known anything about this who think that Brexit will be good for the City make a number of arguments which I shall address in turn...
1. They need us more than we need them. This is a variant of the German carmakers argument. And we know how that went...Business will follow the profit opportunity and if that has moved then so will the business...
And what do we mean by us / we. We’re not talking about massed ranks of Euro investing / trading etc blue blooded British institutions.
Au contraire. We’re talking about the London based subs of US, Asian and indeed European capital markets players...As soon as they think the profit opportunity has moved then so will they...it’s a market innit...
London's status as a financial centre isn't as secure as some might think | Dan Davies https://t.co/q9SU7ra4oF
— The Guardian (@guardian) February 13, 2021
The extremely small minority of people who known anything about this who think that Brexit will be good for the City make a number of arguments which I shall address in turn...
1. They need us more than we need them. This is a variant of the German carmakers argument. And we know how that went...Business will follow the profit opportunity and if that has moved then so will the business...
And what do we mean by us / we. We’re not talking about massed ranks of Euro investing / trading etc blue blooded British institutions.
Au contraire. We’re talking about the London based subs of US, Asian and indeed European capital markets players...As soon as they think the profit opportunity has moved then so will they...it’s a market innit...